National Pastime Next Generation Reviewed

I recently came across a free tabletop baseball game called National Pastime Next Generation and downloaded the rules along with the 1975 player cards.  Amazingly the game is based on National Pastime which was created in 1931 (although I'm sure there have been many tweaks).  This game does not feel like a game older than my father.  It incorporates park effect and left/righty matchups.  So what's the verdict?

The game is fun.  I played APBA baseball once in the mid 70's until my friend's brother found out we were using his game, but I've also investigated APBA for possible purchase since then.  I've also played Baseball for Windows when it came out.  This game is very reminiscent of APBA.

You select your starting lineups and pitchers and away you go.  Play begins with the roll of two six sided dice.  The dice are not added together but instead read as two separate digits.  This roll is then referenced on the batter's card giving you a number between 1 and 45.  These numbers are then cross-referenced off of the appropriate chart.  There are charts for each possible baserunner situation.  The chart will tell you the result of the play.

So, now that we have the basics out of the way, how does the game hold up?

Well, I think the results are fairly accurate and the game really is fun to play.  I'm getting quicker now and don't need to access the chart for every result (although I still need to check the chart more often than not).  I plan to continue my replay of the '75 season and will publish results here from time to time.

So, what do I wish were different about the game?  Well, first, I'm disappointed the lefty/righty matchups only work for pitchers.  I see that a complete redesign of the card would be required to include lefty/righty hitter results, but I enjoy having my right handed pinch hitter that can mash lefties.  I don't get that with NPNG.

My biggest complaint, however, is how base stealing is handled.  Bunting, hit and runs, positioning of the infielders, pinch hitting, and removing a pitcher are all strategy decisions in the hand of the manager.  The same cannot be said of base stealing.  Base stealing is built into the card which leads to a number of issues in my opinion.

First, good armed catchers are worthless.  I'm a Reds fan (hence my wanting to replay 1975) and was looking forward to playing with Johnny Bench.  Well, Johnny might was well be me behind the plate because his rocket arm makes zero difference.  I want teams to steal less frequently and less successfully vs the Reds, but in my first game Bench allowed 3 SB.

Second, obviously if catchers don't impact the running game, neither do pitchers.  Some pitchers biggest weakness was the propensity to give up stolen bases.  For instance, when Greg Maddux won his four consecutive Cy Young awards, he was terrible at holding baserunners.  In this system, Maddux will be even more dominant as walks and singles don't become doubles.

Third, and most troubling, there is no looking at game situation in determining whether the baserunner steals a base.  Generally if the game is not close, teams don't steal bases.  They still will with this game.  But more importantly, players will attempt stolen bases even if the situation doesn't call for it.  I've only played about ten games so far and yet I've had a very extreme case in which the stolen base rules gave a very unrealistic result.  The Cardinals were tied in the bottom of the 9th with two outs and a man on first.  Lou Brock laces a single moving the runner to third and immediately gets thrown out stealing second.  Lou Brock is one of the all-time great basestealers and would realize his run meant absolutely nothing in that situation.  There's no way he would have attempted that stolen base.

Despite my frustration with the stolen base system and the lack of platoon splits for hitters, I still strongly recommend this game.  First off, it's completely free.  Second, it's very fun.  Third, the results seem very realistic.  Follow along as I post replay results here and we'll see how strong those results are.